Quote Originally Posted by darkker View Post
You just whiffed with this one Foxx.
I understand everyone has a different notion about how to "better" accomplish any given task, but what the 243 is known for isn't this. What it is known for by every Ballistics lab there is, is random unexplainable pressure excursions particularly when shooting heavy bullets with appropriately slow powders. Random "Ruh-Roh, Raggy" moments do not describe an inherently accurate cartridge design.

Does it shoot very sexy BC bullets quickly? Yes. Can it turn in some very impressive groups at distance? Certainly! Does that mean it's because the cartridge design is inherently accurate? No.
WTF are you talking about, Darkker? I "whiffed"? My point is NOT whether the .243 is the best cartridge at long distance. My point is the accepted wisdom of the shooting community is that there are cartridges better (or worse) suited for accuracy at different ranges. SavRimfire seems to be asserting, rather authoritatively, the exact opposite. He seems to be saying, that any cartridge can be made just as accurate as another. I don't believe that, and it's a rather unconventional opinion that actually defies my sensibiltities. I am trying to understand what his point is. If the .243 is not all that accurate, as I suggested above, Darkker, than your assertion only serves to support mine. Different cartridges have different inherent accuracy potential.